The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1887-04-30

ing more than usual, and had the best
OF reasons for it. First, we did not
realize the propriety of collecting this
largely increased revenue and hoard
ing ii up in banks, where those who
paid il would derive no benefit from it.
Again a part of the increased expenses
was unavoidable. The criminal costs,
under a vigorous prosecution of the
criminal laws, was very much increas-
ed. This cost comes to the court prop
erly certified, and it has nothing to do
but pay it. The records will show
that in the last two years the number
OF the insane i'll the asylums has
greatly increased, and the expenses
Il So necessarily increased. This eX-
pcnsG cannot be avoided. hope there
is not one citizen in the county who
will complain that these poor unfortu-
nate beings, bereft of reason and una
BILE TO provide for themselves, were
provided for by the county.
Bnt the greatest increase was in the
expenses for roads and bridges. All
will remember the extremely wet sea-
son of 1SS4-5. There were constant
rains that often poured down in tor
rents. The earth was saturated with
water and the roads in many places
became impossible. The streams were
swollen and were frequently out OF
their banks, and many bridges and cul-
verts were swept away. There never
was greater pressure upon the court
for appropriations for the improvement
of roads and the building of bridges.
The people knew there was large
fund in the treasury and insisted that
it should be expended for their
benefit. The court fully realized the
situation and believing that good roads
contributed very much TO the prosperi.
ty of the county, expended as much
as it could, prudently for that purpose.
A comparison of the road and bridge
expenses of few years will show that
the increase in expenses was mainly
for these purposes. The amount paid
in 1880 was 1921; in 1882, S9,1l6;
and in 1885, S22 ,53S, being $13, 422
more than in 1882. 1t will thus be
seen for what purpose the money was
Now, did the people want
their money thus expended? All who
the court know the constant
demand there was for these purposes
The farmers, who paid most Of the
taxes. wanted good roads to market.
But we are not left in doubt as to the
wishes of the people. In two success
sive elections, in 1854 and in 1886, the
people voted by large majorities to
amend the constitution, SO that the
county court could levy an additional
tax for road and bridge purposes. Nc
better evidence of their wishes could
be adduced, and the court only com.
pile with their desire as far as it had
the means to do so. 1t did not supply
half the demand.
bridges is the only portion of the ex
penses that the people derive direct
benefit from. They realize it, and en-
joy the advantages that good roads
and bridges give them. All Other
county expenses, amounting, until re-
Gently, 10 more than one-half, was fOr
pay of officers, criminal and poor
house, and other governmental ex.
penses, for which we derive only q
general benefit. We have the satis-
faction of believing that the roads and
bridges were never in better condition,
and have no regrets for the money ex.
pended for these purposes.
he rest of Mr. Catron's communi.
cation consists of errors and trivial
charges, which, it true (it is not the
case) would amount to nothing. We
will point out few and correct them.
lie says that some eighteen months
ago the court adopted a rule requiring
dramshop keepers to file new petition
every six months. This is incorrect.
The court never adopted such a rule
1t had no rule but the law. That did
not require petition every six months.
In some cases, petitioners who did not
the law, voluntarily filed
such petitions, but the court never
required them to do so. This is error
one.
lie again says that we adopted a
rule requiring petitioners to make all
affidavit that their petitions contained
the names of a majority of the legal
petitioners of the district. We never
adopted it and never said that we did.
1t was adopted by our predecessors
and we only continued it i'm force.
This is error number two.
Again he says, the road southwest of
Lexington was opened at the expense
Of The tax payers. The court had the
authority to do SO under the law, but
it did not. The statement is wholly
incorrect. The usual order was made
10 open the road at the expense of the
petitioners. They collected the money
and paid the expense of opening,
Error number three.
Again he says the expenses of 1856 6
exceeded the income The records of
he treasurer's office are the best evil
ience of the income and expenditures,
and they show that there was more
money in the treasury February l,
1887, when the collections for the pre-
3lous year were all in, than on Febru.
lry l, 1850. Error number 4.
lie says the expenses of 1886 were
$4,000 more than the Income. The
same records show that there was a
greater amount in the expense fund
February l, 1887, than there was one
y ear before. The expenses could not.
therefore,, have exceeded the income.
Error number five.
And here we wish to repeat the
statement in our first communication.
That there was greater amount in the
revenue fund at the expiration
Of our term, inCldding the Dece mber
collections, than when we entered up-
IN II. An amount sufficient TO meet
The expenses another year.
Again, he says You will not find a
county Judge experimenting the build
ng OF bridges or county work, or in
person, of the bench, directing over
'eers how to work the roads, contrary
o the letter and spirit OF the law, prior
% 1888. He does not state that it was
80 during or after 1855. but that is the
The law gives the court the entire
control OF the roads and bridges. Not
tn uverseer could be appointed, a
'rid@e b"lll or an appropriation be
naGe tor roads without its consent.
The court exercised the authority
iested III il, made such appropriations
md gave such Instructions and advice
o over GERS rs it deemed best during
Is sittings. But neither OF us ever
attempted to direct or control over.
GERS i'll their work, out of court, nor
l'd we ever superintend or manage the
Iaiiding of a bridge OF attempt to do
%. This is a monster charge. IT is
more terrible than an army with
Such charge would have
rushed Calhoun or Webster in the
lays OF their greatest glory, would
ave shaken Washington in the acme
# his power and would now drive
jieVeiand III disgrace from the White
1'use, and how can such humble per-
ons aS ourselves stand it. Our kind
mt complaining friend differs very
much from rnany very estimabIe citi
en-, ut The county,, who think il is the